cellio | children and organized religion

I found this article on the problems faced by child-free church-goers to be fascinating. Also extremely resonant. (Warning: tone is sometimes "undiplomatic".) Thanks to

revlainiep for the link.

A few excerpts:

It is readily apparent that a crisis of faith exists among religious individuals within the childfree community. As religious organizations continue to gravitate toward all things "family-friendly" (at the paradoxical expense of childfree families), people are finding themselves increasingly alienated from the religion of their choice.

Not all families contain children. Please repeat this phrase like a mantra.

The family-friendly trend in modern worship leads to a phenomenon that I like to call the “Disneyfication of religion". When children become the focal point of a church, you'll find that the liturgical pickings get pretty slim. Everything becomes ridiculously over-simplified. Before long, you'll notice that the accomplishments of the 12 Apostles have been reduced to a panoramic display made out of Popsicle sticks.

Children, if permitted to attend church at all, should be kept in services geared toward children. It's doing both the adults and the children a huge favor. Children cry and scream during services because they cannot handle the situation. It's not their fault. If the children are kept busy with activities more appropriate to their own age group, then both they and the adult congregation will benefit greatly.

People get all misty-eyed babbling on about the beauty of the prayers of a child. Well, the prayers of an adult are just as crucial--and in the case of an adult, at least God won't be constantly petitioned for jellybeans and Pokemon toys.

On a more serious note, the phenomenon of childfree individuals giving up on organized religion is becoming an international epidemic. Is it because they're uncaring, unfeeling souls who are no longer concerned about honoring God? Hardly. It's because they've been all but shoved out into the streets by churches that are positively obsessed with keeping up a "family-friendly" image (but naturally, the childfree families can hang from the highest tree).

Update: Apparently, there is a "child-free" movement that is actively hostile to children. I thought the term merely described people who chose not to have kids, without specific implications about attitude. Let me just clarify that I don't have a problem with other people's well-behaved kids. But I do have a problem with bad behavior (from anyone), any expectation that I participate in child-care, and the various efforts out there to elevate children above adults. (As an example of the last, I think adults living in poverty are just as tragic as children living in poverty, and I don't contribute to charities that are about "saving children" as opposed to "saving people".) And yeah, I've seen this kind of elevation of unready children in my congregation, though it's not nearly as prevalent as the article's author says it is in hers.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Very nicely put.

While it is sad that anyone should have to put up with being a minority regarding their religious life, children are by necessity a part of the community. They grow up to be us. Our early religious experiences give us a (dis)taste for participating in the community at all, so giving young people or anyone new to the community a chance to learn and participate in a pleasant setting is important. Please note that this doesn't mean putting up with bad behavior.

I like the services I've been to where the children get up and go out when they've had enough. They leave quietly and unobtrusively, and can get to the children's room on their own. This isn't possible for the very little ones, of course, but is a solution for a portion of the issue.

children are by necessity a part of the community

One part, yes. Would you agree that we should single out children (in service participation, for example) only to the extent that we single out women, men, new members, 20s/30s, retirees, and other demographic subgroups?

My congregation has several "nth-grade services" each year, where, for example, the fourth-grade class will lead a service. They do this for each grade. It's a real zoo, and it seems to be primarily a show for the parents. I know lots of regular congregants (I'm one too), the ones who are there every week as part of the community, who feel so alienated by those services that they just don't come on those nights, because in the process of serving those families' needs the congregation is not serving the other congregants' needs.

I actually have what you might think would be a counter-intuitive idea for how to fix this. I'd like to integrate some of those kids into most of the services. Let a few kids read the opening psalms in kabbalat shabbat, at the beginning of the service, and then be done. Let kids who don't want to do it bow out without shame, and if there are still too many then make it merit-based in some way. Make it an honor that's contingent on good behavior, and make it blessedly-short for the regulars. This forces some degree of integration (which some parents will object to, I predict).

I like the services I've been to where the children get up and go out when they've had enough.

I think anyone who's had enough and isn't getting anything out of a service should be able to get up and leave without any negative consequences. I wish talkers would do this. :-)

I actually have what you might think would be a counter-intuitive idea for how to fix this. I'd like to integrate some of those kids into most of the services. Let a few kids read the opening psalms in kabbalat shabbat, at the beginning of the service, and then be done.

That is my experience from the church I grew up in. Children's usual participation in services was limited to the occasional Psalm reading or children's choir performance (the children's choir was as tightly cast, practiced, and controlled as the adult choir: we could sing). Once a year we had a Sunday-School-run service, which was planned and tightly controlled mostly by the Sunday School staff (which for many years was led by my father). A 'zoo' would never be allowwed, ever.

What I noticed from the article is that the author conflates badly-behaving, undisciplined, disruptive children with All Possible Children. I've seen that kind of conflation in many bits of 'childfree' rhetoric. It...bothers me. I was raised by parents, and in a community, that expected me and my fellow children to behave, so I guess that's why I think the solution is for children to behave, not to be exiled or banned.

Another thing I've seen is to have children lead "Adon Alom" at the end of services. There's an echo-y tune to that that's pretty easy to lead. On the other hand, that's more suited to a mass of 5 and 6 year olds than to individual children.

At my current shul I regularly go to two different minyans. One has a wider age range. There are newborns up through high school students. Basically, kids are expected to be quiet. Sometimes they'll be crawling around, but if they get noisy then a parent will take them out of the room. There's a children's area on the same floor that they can go to, as well as various children's services in the building. The older kids come and go as they like. The other minyan doesn't have any children above the age of 5. Often the 5-year old and the 2 year old will play quietly on the steps of the ark at the front of the room. The main problem is when they start to giggle too much. If they're too noisy (there's one child who has lots of energy and finds it tough to stay quiet), they're taken outside by a parent. I like having children around (and G-d willing will have children of my own who I will take to services.) Neither service is dumbed down by the presence of children.

children and organized religion

Re: "Childfree"

Re: "Childfree"

Re: "Childfree"

Re: "Childfree"